In one example countering the policy, Genero wrote, "At Keeneland Race Course, one of the most prestigious tracks in the country, employees are not expressly prohibited from wagering, according to a spokesperson. Unsurprisingly for an enterprise…">

HRI Columnists

HRI Selections

HRI Featured Bloggers

Indulto

"Players Up" blogger Indulto is a retired computer programming residing in SoCal and has been betting Thoroughbreds since the days of Kelso, cashing his first ticket at Saratoga while in college.

Indulto is well known in racing's cyber world as a participant on the Ragozin Sheets message board, the PaceAdvantage Forum, Paulick Report, and has made important contributions to the industry's audience as an HRI Readers Blog contributor.

Indulto was active in the formation of the Horseplayers Association of North America and with former HANA colleagues worked on the Players' Boycott of California racing when takeout rates were increased by the legislature there.

Taking his nickname from the King Ranch color-bearer of the 1960s, Indulto now devotes his time to advocate for the recreational player and hobbyist, but prefers lower takeout rates for all rather than subsidized rebates for the few.

Indulto supports the creation of a centralized racing authority to establish uniform rules for racing and wagering and for those standards to be enforced consistently.

"Among the various resolutions the new board was asked to approve was one prohibiting corporate officers from wagering on the races. This is a silly and unnecessary restriction, unfairly suggesting impropriety, and it raised some eyebrows.

"Why would we prohibit officers wagering, since we're in the wagering business? " asked Stuart Janney, a board member and the chairman of the Jockey Club.

I thought I heard some assenting murmurs, and it seemed for a moment that there might be some actual discussion and dissension amid the thud of rubber-stamp approvals. Then someone pointed out that board members are not technically corporate officers and could continue playing the races.

The room exhaled, and the resolution passed unanimously."

To paraphrase an old saw, one writer's comedy is another's tragedy. Teresa Genero appeared to take the moment fairly seriously in Forbes , questioning whether integrity of the sport would be strengthened by such a policy. She noted that: 'New board chair Dr. David Skorton, president of Cornell University, said in supporting the resolution, "The idea is that the loyalty and responsibility of the people managing the organization, the most senior people, are focusing on whatever it is that the board decides needs to be done, not any acts that might conceivably bring personal recompense.'

Then continued: "It seems curious, though, that the policy doesn't apply to the NYRA board of directors, which is also in a position to make decisions that should be, to quote Skorton, unencumbered by the possibility of personal recompense. "

In one example countering the policy, Genero wrote, "At Keeneland Race Course, one of the most prestigious tracks in the country, employees are not expressly prohibited from wagering, according to a spokesperson. Unsurprisingly for an enterprise that features exemplary customer service, Keeneland asks that employees wager early in the day to avoid interference with their professional responsibilities and creating additional wait time in wagering lines for guests."

Though he seemed unmoved by the moment, Tom Noonan questioned its necessity in his blog:

"There was one telling discussion during the meeting. It had to do with a proposal to ban wagering by NYRA's corporate officers. I did not understand the need for such a ban since there had not been any problems identified in the past from allowing wagering, and I could not think of a possible rationale for the revision…

“I personally find Keeneland's position the most reasonable… However, I do see the board eventually accepting a similar restriction on its members. Anything less would brand them as either a bunch of hypocrites or else compulsive gamblers incapable of supporting the "greater good."

I wonder if Dr. Skorton momentarily considered suggesting that possibility to the board whose voting majority is still comprised of veterans from prior NYRA boards, or if he was relieved that confrontation had been avoided on his maiden voyage into the sun.

I also wonder if this policy is tied to some finding in the still-not-released Inspector General's report on the takeout fiasco. Was evidence of excessive wagering activity by executives uncovered by investigators? If so, did it play any role in the Governor's decision to shake things up? As Ms. Genero so aptly put it, "Gamblers need not apply. "

Indeed, will past gambling activity be held against new applicants? I can only imagine how many qualified candidates that would eliminate! Is the Governor and his New NYRA Board Chairman dangerously close to proverbially throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Could a suggestion that recreational betting on horse racing might be less socially acceptable than another form of gambling or entertainment further dampen enthusiasm for the sport, becoming an unintended consequence?

When I started attending the races at Saratoga in the '60s, gambling there considered a positive social experience that engaged people of all backgrounds and bankrolls.

In upstate New York where I grew up, virtually everyone I knew had a family member who attended Saratoga at least once each year. It wasn't unusual during August in the Capital District for a working stiff to request a day off to go to the races without getting hassled by his employer.

After re-locating downstate, it dawned on me that horseplayers there were markedly less visible and often stereotyped as less-than; a notion reinforced when Off Track Betting was introduced.

Eventually, on-line wagering would negate the effects of social stigma but often squalled OTB parlors became an obstacle to attracting new customers. In New York, the barrier to recruitment also includes politicians who lord over the game because they can by playing the society card.

"If he thinks the lure of putting down a wager indicates an insufficient commitment to one’s employer, what would he say of the President of an Ivy League college taking a part-time gig that not only requires travel to Manhattan or Saratoga Springs from Ithaca, but that (hopefully) requires a significant commitment to carrying out one of the Governor’s major initiatives?"

"What I find troubling, however, is what this says about the new Chair’s mindset on the gambling that is an essential part of the industry. It is hard to draw any inference other than that he thinks it reflects negatively on someone who does enjoy betting when he cannot trust highly paid executives to carry out their responsibilities while also placing an occasional wager."

Noonan credited Ms. Genero’s article as motivating his "revisiting" the subject. Indeed both bloggers have been challenging the Governor’s motives and justification for reorganizing NYRA since the plan was announced. In the process, they have raised serious questions regarding the takeout fiasco which remain unanswered.

Hayward’s firing did not sit well with either of the above who have contended that state agency heads assigned oversight responsibility for NYRA were no less derelict in their duty than NYRA executives in failing to observe the statutory sunsetting of the temporary takeout increase enacted when the state took over NYCOTB. I agree with them about the latter, but not the former.

Leaking partial contents of the Inspector General’s report does not rise to the level of transparency promised by Team Cuomo. Their reluctance to release that report in the light of this latest misstep suggests that doing so might reveal more of them.

For those of us who hoped, if not expected, the NYRA reorganization would yield positive racing-related reform, this is a step backward – perhaps as far back as 17th century England’s Puritan Protectorate:
"Cromwell's government divided the country into 11 districts, each under a major general who were responsible not only for tax collection and justice, but for guarding public morality as well. Church attendance was compulsory.

Thoughts to ponder in a sport/game full of skepticism:
1-Should owners, trainers, jockeys, grooms, hot walkers and exercise riders be allowed to bet? Does inside information give an edge over the average Joe the horseplayer.
2-Should the Morning Line track oddsmaker be allowed to bet? Price gauging anyone?
3-Should the racing Secretary be allowed to bet? Race placement in the days card anyone? Weight allowance anyone?
4-Should track veterinarians be allowed to bet? Doctor doctor!
5-Should track condition superintendants be allowed to bet? Speed variant anyone?
6-Should cashier/tellers at the track/otb be allowed to bet? Ever been shut out waiting on line?
7-Should the media be allowed to bet? I’m sure friendships aren’t forged with trainers/jocks/owners for daily scoops. Nor emails exchanged with…
8-Should corporate officers be allowed to bet? Don’t need an Ivy League degree for this do we?

What will the next meeting bring? Good question. There’s always; takeout, Lasix and marketing to newbies. I will ask these questions to my fellow sharpie elders today at my local OTB that will charge me an extra 5% takeout on my winners in the Parx rolling pick three’s with six horse fields. What me worry? I got a sixpack of Fosters waiting in the fridge tonight.

The beat goes on?

One, two, one, two, three, four

Some love is just a lie of the heart
The cold remains of what began with a passionate start
And they may not want it to end
But it will it’s just a question of when
I’ve lived long enough to have learned
The closer you get to the fire the more you get burned
But that won’t happen to us
Cause it’s always been a matter of trust!

I know you’re an emotional girl
It took a lot for you to not lose your faith in this world
I can’t offer you proof
But you’re going to face a moment of truth
It’s hard when you’re always afraid
You just recover when another belief is betrayed
So break my heart if you must
It’s only a matter of trust…

I might be wrong that deodorant urinal pads could be the key topic at the next gathering of appointed NYRA directors, the vast majority of the appointees to the board of directors being clueless on handicapping, track conditions, wagering options, various race requirements to be met, et cetera.

After much thought today and knowing the qualifications of the chairman and most of the appointed directors to be involved in Thoroughbred racing, I now believe that the key topic will be the image of the directors: that all should be taciturn, dress in black suits, convey an image of high intelligence and wealth, own or be associated with top of the line thoroughbreds, and not be seen, dead or alive, at a racetrack during the week. Thus the suggestion of a casual Friday dress code would be rejected. And, of course, if any of the directors figured out how to wager on a plodder, the bet must be made by a ‘runner’ to a special window for the directors, high up in the facility, far from the child scrollers, drunks like me, and $2 dollar bettors.

The reasons why Thoroughbred racing is tanking seem to be oblivious to the current decision makers at NYRA.

------

#3: You seem concerned about an extra 5% takeout by Parx on pick threes. Last I knew, the takeout at Aqueduct on pick threes was 25%, and at Parx 26%. Let’s suppose that the takeout at one track was 26% and at another 15% for a pick three, and that the pick three paid $180.00. So, with a 26% takeout the payoff was $180; at 15% takeout the payoff would have been $206. Twenty-six bucks difference! Now, if you could control the odds, you might just have an argument.

Cat,
We’re here to have fun. Entertainment is my primary goal, and HRI’s freedom of expression policy offers opportunities for humor over and above each blogger’s own contribution. I could do worse than open for Corrow and the Cat. LOL

Why worry about who we wouldn’t want to wager when we could be wondering who’ll be left to wager should the board decide it’s worth keeping whales winning while minnows without rebates fight excessive takeout?

When you get into takeout rates you have to discuss rebating. Somme of the tracks with ridiculous takeout rates offer rebates of 15% to 20% and more on certain wagers. From what I understand there are no volume requirements at a lot of the tracks not considered to be “A” tracks.

“Why worry about who we wouldn’t want to wager when we could be wondering who’ll be left to wager should the board decide it’s worth keeping whales winning while minnows without rebates fight excessive takeout?”

Because some of those whales might be members of the Jockey Club. Some might be wealthy owners like Ken Ramsey who likes to bet. Do all owners only bet on their horses? Do trainers and owners have more inside info? Do they know if claiming dropdowns are for health reasons or deception?

Does the future of racing want a Pete Rose in the jockeys room? Would you sit at the poker table with Doyle Brunson?

You have to clean up the skepticism before you can attract newbies and bring back people who left.

9-Should Stewards be allowed to bet? NO
10- Should Sam the bugler be allowed to bet? Only if he makes it back in time for the call to the post.

Cat,
I don’t mind if owners and trainers bet on horses other than their own as long as it isn’t in the same race in which one of their own is entered, or is a bet against their own horse on an exchange. Same for jockeys.

They will always have “inside information.” What can we do besides advocate full disclosure of medical procedures and medication schedules, as well as changes in equipment and/or ownership in a timely fashion?

IMO, active vets should not be active horse owners and/or trainers. Vets and stewards shouldn’t be betting on races at their own venues under any circumstances. If vets are truly horse safety advocates, betting on them would seem to be a conflict of interest, especially on races in which a horse under their care is entered.

I wouldn’t let any convicted race fixers back in the game, but how many of them have there been?

How many people do you know that would sit down and play poker with a known cheater? How many still play Internet poker despite the already proven rigging that is still suspected?

Do think that cheating in horse racing is a bigger problem than insider trading in the stock market?

Have you bought a used car, lately?

It’s not the suspicion of cheating that is keeping the newbie away, it is the certain knowledge that the game is a bad gamble, the competition too intimidating, the environment too unattractive, and peer age group members too invisible.

That, and the lack of confidence among outsiders that horses are being treated with appropriate concern for their safety and previous service.

The issues in the last two paragraphs are appropriate for consideration by the board. In doing so, Chairman Skorton needs to focus on optimizing the business practices of NYRA, not the personal lives of its employees.

* Prior commenting issues should now be resolved

Name:

Email:

Location:

Notify me of follow-up comments?

*** HorseRaceInsider will delete any comment that engages in personal attacks directed at anyone, uses foul language, or one made by an imposter using another’s name to express an opinion or comment.

HRI will not, however, edit or discourage those who, with intellectual honesty, disagree with HRI staffers or other readers. We also will not, as is done on some racing sites, edit disagreeable or negative commentary in the interests of commerce.